Announcement

**Ronson** · 12-28-2022, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

In the thread on the WEF plans for world domination, Ronson asked this:

So, the first part of the answer is a few corrections. I don't think Trump had the world in mind, I think he had the US presidency in mind. And he wanted to win a second term, no matter what - to the point he was willing to gather his forces in an attempt to stop the certification, violently if necessary, in a bid to allow himself to retain power.

You start that off with "I think he had.." - so we're discussing your beliefs, not the evidence. Well, my belief is that Trump threw a public temper tantrum when he didn't win reelection (he's still throwing it) and a lot of his supporters reacted to that. No calls by him for an insurrection. And if any were planned by the goofballs that showed up at that time, they didn't execute them. They acted like the same rioters that had inspired them six months prior, in Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle.

The second is that this was to the extent possible a bi-partisan panel, AND the majority of the witnesses from whom they gathered testimony were Republican.

The panel was led by Democrats, with two very-unique Republicans who had earlier voted for Trump's impeachment. Such jurors would have been dismissed from an ordinary jury trial.

In fact: here is a complete list of the witnesses from the report itself:

I'm not sure what you think is the significance of that list of names.

What the Jan 6 hearings did, and in a very much bi-partisan, non-political way, was expose a large block of evidence that shows Trump did in fact attempt to invalidate a legal election though unethical and in the end violent means. He did, in fact, foment an insurrection against the United States..

And that's what I requested: What is the evidence? What you seem to be saying is that this "large block" of evidence cannot be reduced, or have specifics extracted from it. If that is your position then I'm not buying it.

The report itself spans close to 900 pages. So clearly no-one here has the patience for that, including myself. Neither am I going to do a "Gish gallop" of a myriad of statements that will lead to a myriad of rabbit trails and denials. So I'm going to start by talking a bit about the election denial. The setup. What Trump did to make Jan 6 possible.

Now do I believe Trump was some sort of mastermind supervillain? No. He was shot-gunning most of it. He knew what his assets were though, and he had a good many, and he used them to the extent he could - reaching for whatever avenues might exist for retaining the presidency. And one of those avenues he chose was to build on the basic mistrust that already existed wrt the election. To make the people that wanted him to be president believe that the election was not legitimate. That it was stolen.

And this was one of the main areas the Jan 6 commission explored. I'll end this post here, and continue my coverage of the setup to Jan 6 in the next post with testimony from, among others Bill Barr. At that point I'll stop and we can talk about that evidence, about that setup.

OK

**oxmixmudd** · 12-28-2022, 07:58 PM

About that setup. In the report, they reference some comments by Steve Bannon Halloween night:

Source: Jan 6 commission report pp 199-200 selections

On Halloween, advisor Steve Bannon, who had served four years earlier as Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, laid out the election night plan. “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon told a private audience. “He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”15 Bannon explained that the Democrats “[would] have a natural disadvantage” on election night, because more Democrats would vote by mail than Republicans and it would take time to count the mail-in ballots. This would give President Trump the illusion of a lead. “And Trump’s going to take advantage of it,” Bannon said. “That’s our strategy. He’s gonna declare himself a winner.”16 In an interview on Fox News the morning of the election, Bannon insisted that President Trump needed to address the nation that night, to “provide the narrative engine for how we go forward.”17 During an episode of his podcast later that same day, Bannon clarified what he meant: President Trump is “going to claim victory. Right? He’s going to claim victory.”18

...

Roger Stone, President Trump’s longtime political confidante, told several associates just prior to the election that Trump needed to declare victory—especially if the race wasn’t called on election day. “Let’s just hope we are celebrating” on election night, Stone said. “I really do suspect it will still be up in the air. When that happens, the key thing to do is claim victory.” Stone elaborated with colorful language. “Possession is ninetenths of the law. No, we won. Fuck you. Sorry. Over. We won. You’re wrong. Fuck you.”24 Indeed, published reports echoed these warnings about President Trump’s election strategy. Two days before the election, Jonathan Swan of Axios reported that President Trump “has told confidants he'll declare victory on Tuesday night if it looks like he's ‘ahead.’”25 Swan added that “Trump's team is preparing to falsely claim that mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3—a legitimate count expected to favor Democrats—are evidence of election fraud.”26 If the vote tally swung against Trump after election night in States such as Pennsylvania, then the Trump team would claim the Democrats had “stolen” the election.27 Fox News election analysis Chris Stirewalt testified that he and his team “had gone to pains” to inform viewers that early votes would favor Republicans but the lead would be illusory “because the Trump campaign and the President had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this anomaly.”28 Others warned that President Trump could exploit the Red Mirage as well.29

© Copyright Original Source

This was the plan then, to declare victory early on and then claim that the expected shift towards blue was evidence of fraud.

This is all BEFORE the election occurred.

Indeed, President Trump himself was setting up for this long before Halloween:

Source: Jan 6 select committee report pp200,201

The Select Committee found dozens of instances in which President Trump claimed that mail-in voting would produce a “rigged” election. Trump repeatedly denounced mail-in voting on Twitter, during interviews, and even during the presidential debate. Here is a small sample of President Trump’s attempts to delegitimize mail-in balloting.

On April 7, 2020, President Trump claimed: Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they’re cheaters. They go and collect them. They’re fraudulent in many cases. . . . These mailed ballots come in. The mailed ballots are corrupt, in my opinion. And they collect them, and they get people to go in and sign them. And then they—they’re forgeries in many cases. It’s a horrible thing.30

The following day, April 8, President Trump tweeted: Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to statewide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans. @foxandfriends31

On May 24, President Trump tweeted: The United States cannot have all Mail In Ballots. It will be the greatest Rigged Election in history. People grab them from mailboxes, print thousands of forgeries and “force” people to sign. Also, forge names. Some absentee OK, when necessary. Trying to use Covid for this Scam!32

On September 17, President Trump falsely alleged that mail-in ballots were ripe for foreign interference: @TrueTheVote There is a group of people (largely Radical Left Democrats) that want ELECTION MAYHEM. States must end this CRAZY mass sending of Ballots. Also, a GIFT to foreign interference into our election!

© Copyright Original Source

Now, what is interesting is that as Trump and those around him are implementing this strategy, which continued long after the election itself, they run into some roadblocks. Republicans, faithful to the party, but who have integrity and can tell that the stories being told to prop up the strategy are false.

One of those is Bill Barr himself - someone I was personally very worried about because Trump had hand selected him because he had such extraordinarily grandiose views of Presidential power, of what the President was in fact allowed to do. I was very much concerned this would only exacerbate Trump's continued abuse of power. But it turned out not only did Barr have integrity, he had the gonads to stand up when pushed beyond what he believed was right.

So as Trump and his lawyers attempted to push untenable allegations of fraud on the courts, Barr was there to investigate the claims objectively and truthfully report they were in fact bogus, completely without merit. Most importantly, he told President Trump they were bogus, LONG BEFORE JAN 6.

Source: Jan 6 select committee report pp373-376

U.S. Attorney General William Barr knew there would be trouble before all the votes had been counted. “So, right out of the box on election night, the President claimed that there was major fraud underway,” Barr explained. “I mean, this happened, as far as I could tell, before there was actually any potential of looking at evidence.”1 President Trump was quick to claim, “there was major fraud” based solely on the phenomenon known as the “Red Mirage.”2

...

Within days of the election, the President made an “avalanche” of fraud allegations. It “was like playing Whac-A-Mole,” Barr explained, “because something would come out one day and the next day it would be another issue.”9 Barr told his “staff very soon after the election” that he “didn’t think the President would ever admit that he lost the election, and he would blame it on fraud, and then he would blame the actions and evidence on the Department of Justice.”10 Barr soon took steps to investigate claims of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election, even in the absence of evidence. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) longstanding policy had been to avoid any substantive investigations until after the election’s results were certified.11 As the country’s premier Federal law enforcement agency, DOJ is justifiably concerned that its substantial power can influence the outcome of an election, and it has enacted policies to mitigate this possibility.12 On November 7, 2020, the media declared former Vice President Biden the winner of the Presidential election. Two days later, on November 9th, Attorney General Barr authorized wider investigations into claims of election fraud.13 Barr instructed DOJ and FBI personnel “to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions in certain cases.”14 Barr noted that nothing in his memo “should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election.”15 4.2 NOVEMBER

...Trump continued “for quite a while,” and Barr was “expecting” what came next.18 President Trump alleged that “the Department of Justice doesn’t think it has a role looking into these fraud claims.”19 Barr anticipated this line of attack because the President’s counsel, Rudolph Giuliani, was making all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated claims.20 And Giuliani wanted to blame DOJ for the fact that no one had come up with any real evidence of fraud.21 Of course, by the time of this meeting, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices had been explicitly authorized to investigate substantial claims for 2 weeks and had yet to find any evidence of significant voter fraud.22 Barr explained to the President why he was wrong. DOJ, was willing to investigate any “specific and credible allegations of fraud.”23 The fact of the matter was that the claims being made were “just not meritorious” and were “not panning out.”24 Barr emphasized to the President that DOJ “doesn’t take sides in elections” and “is not an extension of your legal team.”25 During the November 23rd meeting, Barr also challenged one of President Trump’s central lies. He “specifically raised the Dominion voting machines, which I found to be one of the most disturbing allegations.”26 “Disturbing,” Barr explained, because there was “absolutely zero basis for the allegations,” which were being “made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public.”27 Americans were being deceived into thinking “that there was this systematic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count and that these machines, controlled by somebody else, were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense.”28 Barr stressed to the President that this was “crazy stuff,” arguing that not only was the conspiracy theory a waste of time, but it was also “doing [a] great, great disservice to the country.”29 As Attorney General Barr left the meeting, he talked with Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff, and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law.30 “I think he’s become more realistic and knows that there’s a limit to how far he can take this,” Meadows said, according to Barr.31 Kushner reassured Barr, “we’re working on this, we’re working on it.”32 Barr was hopeful that the President was beginning to accept reality.33 The opposite happened. “I felt that things continued to deteriorate between the 23rd and the weekend of the 29th,” Barr recalled.34 Barr was concerned because President Trump began meeting with delegations of State legislators, and it appeared to him that “there was maneuvering going on.”35 Barr had “no problem” with challenging an election “through the appropriate process,” but “worried” that he “didn’t have any visibility into what was going on” and that the “President was digging in.”36

© Copyright Original Source

But Trump and his allies continued, in spite of the fact the DOJ and the FBI could find nothing. There was nothing that could be found, but Trump was continuing to foment unrest and division across the country telling lie after lie about the election to his followers when there was simply no evidence to support it. Finally, Barr took the step of publicaly declaring that no irregularities sufficient to change the outcome had been found.

Source: jan 6 select committe report pp377

“Missing in action,” the President replied, “can’t tell you where they are.”45 He conceded that when he asked if DOJ and FBI were investigating, “everyone says yes, they’re looking at it.”46 But he didn’t leave it there. “You would think if you’re in the FBI or Department of Justice, this is, this is the biggest thing you could be looking at,” President Trump said. “Where are they? I’ve not seen anything. I mean, just keep moving along. They go onto the next President.”47 He claimed the FBI was not even investigating Dominion, adding that votes processed in its machines “are counted in foreign countries.”48 None of this was true. Just 6 days earlier, Attorney General Barr had explained to President Trump how DOJ and FBI were investigating fraud claims. Barr also made it a point to emphasize that the Dominion claims were nonsense. The President simply lied. The “crazy stuff,” as Barr put it, was all Trump could cite. Attorney General Barr then decided to speak out. He invited Michael Balsamo, an Associated Press (AP) reporter, to lunch on December 1st. Barr told the journalist that “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”49

© Copyright Original Source

So Bill Barr, a republican, top of his field, hand selected by Trump to lead the DOJ, and man with a very liberal view of Presidential power, is so taken aback by the lies and the lack of evidence for fraud that he goes PUBLIC to declare there simply isn't anything out there. And that does in fact cost him his job.

But this continues long after Barr resigns and is replaced. The lies continue, on and on and on. And the report contains volumes of records of exactly when and what was being done to shore up and build up a frenzied belief that the election had been stolen, rigged.

But was Barr the only one telling Trump he'd lost, the election was not rigged, the election was not stolen?

No

Source: jan 6 select committe report pp 204/205

Cannon recalled that Vice President Pence asked him what he was finding. “And I said that I didn't believe we were finding it, or I was not personally finding anything sufficient to alter the results of the election,” Cannon responded. Vice President Pence thanked him.61 Cannon reported his assessment to Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff, as well. In mid to late-November 2020, Meadows asked Cannon what his investigation had turned up. “And I remember sharing with him that we weren't finding anything that would be sufficient to change the results in any of the key states,” Cannon told Meadows. “So there is no there, there?” Meadows replied.62 Jason Miller, a senior advisor to the Trump Campaign, pushed claims of election fraud in public. In private, however, Miller says that he told President Trump a different story, informing him numerous times that there was not enough election fraud to have changed the election: Miller: My understanding is that I think there are still very valid questions and concerns with the rules that were changed under the guise of COVID, but, specific to election day fraud and irregularities, there were not enough to overturn the election. Committee Staff: And did you give your opinion on that to the President? Miller: Yes. Committee Staff: What was his reaction when you told him that? Miller: “You haven't seen or heard”—I’m paraphrasing, but—“you haven't seen or heard all the different concerns and questions that have been raised.” Committee Staff: How many times did you have this conversation with the President? Miller: Several. I couldn't put a specific number on it, though. Committee Staff: But more than one? Miller: Correct.63 Matthew Morgan, the Trump Campaign’s top lawyer, came to a similar conclusion. Nearly two months after the election, on January 2nd, Morgan met with the Vice President’s staff. According to Morgan, the consensus in the room was that even if all the claims of fraud and irregularities were “aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign . . . it was not sufficient to be outcome determinative.” 64 As far as the Trump Campaign’s professional leadership was concerned, there was no evidence that the election had been “stolen” from President Trump. To the contrary, they had seen ample evidence that President Trump simply lost—and told the President so.

© Copyright Original Source

There is so much more in the report in terms of the specific details of the sorts of fraud claims that were being pursued and how they were shown to be without merit, how Trump was told they were without merit, and how he and his lawyers continued, right up until Jan 6, to stir up discontent and unrest on the false allegation that there was significant fraud in the election. That he didn't actually lose the election, but rather it was stolen from him.

So that is enough for now. But the point is, Trump was purposefully building unrest and discontent all across this country to support the Lie that he had won the election, but that it had been stolen from him. A lie that would result in the violence we saw on Jan 6. This was purposed, intentional, and STILL continues today.

**Darth Executor** · 12-28-2022, 08:13 PM

1. trump fired bannon and stone ages ago.
2. Them saying "that was the plan" doesn't mean that was the plan or that trump had anything to do with it.
3. The democrats were also preparing to say the election was stole and set up the idea ahead of time. That doesn't mean the democrats were planning an insurrection. It's just dumb partisan nonsense.

What actually happened:

Trump believed the election was stolen and said so. Many of his followers believed him and a small # of them rioted, like liberals have been doing for years when they don't get their way. Liberals, who hate Trump and would use any means available to throw him in prison for purely partisan reasons, have done everything possible to pretend that's some sort of crime, like in North Korea.

Trump actively told his followers to go home and not do anything. You can spin it however you want but the fact is that you people are in fact the tyrants you claim Trump is.

**Ronson** · 12-29-2022, 05:54 AM

Darth Executor capsulized my thoughts on all this quite well.

Like the Mueller investigation, the J6 investigation was an attempt to confirm a belief, and not any attempt to find the truth. Bannon expressed his opinions - long after he was fired. The same with Stone "who told associates" his opinions.

If J6 was a planned insurrection, it was the most ridiculous clown party in history. No gun battles, no casualties (except that one woman climbing through a window), and complete chaos that one would expect to find in a riot. It's just another case of Trump: Evil Genius and Trump: Complete Idiot. The Left alternates between these two Hollywood shows and finds no conflict between them. They like to say he's so brilliant that he uses "dog whistles" to make his zombies obey, but he's so stupid that he should have known this haphazard "insurrection" wouldn't go anywhere.

He's not trying to sell a lie. Trump believes he won in 2020. Every time my brother sends me a link to some appearance Trump has made since then, he whines about how he was robbed. This whole bit about knowing it was a lie is Leftists piling on. "It's not enough we charge Trump with insurrection! But he's a liar too! And he kicks puppies!"

If these partisan hacks actually dug up emails or phone conversations or some solid evidence that Trump or his subordinates (not opinions of people fired years earlier) asked them to attack the Capitol and prevent the transfer of power, or to take and occupy buildings, or just SOMETHING that would tie in with this, then they'd have a case. But this is all political fodder. These people hate Trump with every fiber of their beings. And I get it - he's not a likeable character. He's undisciplined, unfiltered, uncouth, and conceited beyond belief. But mainly he pursued policies that frustrated the entrenched uni-party, and is why they want to see him locked up.

**Starlight** · 12-29-2022, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Ronson View Post

You said you thought it was inexcusable that conservatives ignored the J6 hearings. I had no intention of investing hours/days/weeks or months of my life to hear what Democrats think of Donald Trump. I already know what they think, and partisan hearings are little more than opportunities to grandstand.

It's worth noting that the Jan 6 hearings were mostly video clips of footage from the day, and of video clips of witness testimonies of the people who worked with Trump.

Very little of it was politicians talking / grandstanding. It was completely different from any other political hearings I've ever seen.

It was very watchable TV, more like a documentary than a political hearing. It's hard to dispute the evidence they showed since it's all various video clips taken on the day and a multitude of people who were working with Trump testifying under oath and laying out the same general story.

It is both worth watching, and fairly easy-watching. Except for day 3 (which was a dud because one of the in-person witnesses (Michael Luttig) was the world's most boring and least charismatic person)... it was poor by the committee not to spot how terrible of a speaker he was earlier and just show video clips of his testimony instead of having him live in person to waffle for an hour.

PBS has all the hearings on youtube, and I'm sure other places do too. I watched them at 2x speed to get through it.

the J6 investigation was an attempt to confirm a belief, and not any attempt to find the truth.

I don't think you'd say that if you'd watched them. I was really impressed with how much it really was an attempt to get to the truth and gather all the evidence. Even if you think they were motivated out of hating Trump, it's clear that when they started the investigation they didn't understand what Trump's role in the attack on the capitol was, and so any actual legal case against him would have been pretty unlikely to succeed. By the end of the investigation it had become clear from the evidence that Trump was the one really pushing for the attack to happen against the advice of everyone around him, and that he personally really was the bad-actor and motivator of the events that occurred, and there's oodles of evidence from multiple sources to show that.

At the end the committee recommend 4 charges against Trump. Through the hearings they showed pretty convincing evidence for them. One legal analyst I was watching reckoned 3 of the charges are slam dunks, and the 4th is 50/50.

I guess we'll see where the special counsel takes it from here.

**Mountain Man** · 12-29-2022, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

What the Jan 6 hearings did, and in a very much bi-partisan, non-political way...

Please tell me you didn't type that with a straight face.

**seer** · 12-29-2022, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

Please tell me you didn't type that with a straight face.

I thought the same thing...

**Ronson** · 12-29-2022, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Starlight View Post

It's worth noting that the Jan 6 hearings were mostly video clips of footage from the day, and of video clips of witness testimonies of the people who worked with Trump.

Very little of it was politicians talking / grandstanding. It was completely different from any other political hearings I've ever seen.

OK

It was very watchable TV, more like a documentary than a political hearing.

Which makes me suspicious.

It's hard to dispute the evidence they showed since it's all various video clips taken on the day and a multitude of people who were working with Trump testifying under oath and laying out the same general story.

It is both worth watching, and fairly easy-watching. Except for day 3 (which was a dud because one of the in-person witnesses (Michael Luttig) was the world's most boring and least charismatic person)... it was poor by the committee not to spot how terrible of a speaker he was earlier and just show video clips of his testimony instead of having him live in person to waffle for an hour.

It is interesting more for people attuned to this sort of thing. Watching people pushing over barricades or climbing through windows doesn't tell me much.

PBS has all the hearings on youtube, and I'm sure other places do too. I watched them at 2x speed to get through it.

Ah, the PBS take on events.

It's pretty difficult to describe an angry mob who you can see walking calmly between ropes down the corridor. The only person killed - shot - was unarmed and climbing through a window. Watching Mitt Romney skittering down a hallway doesn't have the same impact they hoped to project.

I don't think you'd say that if you'd watched them. I was really impressed with how much it really was an attempt to get to the truth and gather all the evidence. Even if you think they were motivated out of hating Trump, it's clear that when they started the investigation they didn't understand what Trump's role in the attack on the capitol was, and so any actual legal case against him would have been pretty unlikely to succeed.

Out of 213 House Republicans, 10 voted to impeach Trump. Pelosi chose 2 out of that 10. This was a stacked game from Day 1.

By the end of the investigation it had become clear from the evidence that Trump was the one really pushing for the attack to happen against the advice of everyone around him, and that he personally really was the bad-actor and motivator of the events that occurred, and there's oodles of evidence from multiple sources to show that.

No, there's not. There's evidence that Trump threw a public temper tantrum, and this partisan committee connected that to the J6 event as a premeditated plan.

At the end the committee recommend 4 charges against Trump. Through the hearings they showed pretty convincing evidence for them. One legal analyst I was watching reckoned 3 of the charges are slam dunks, and the 4th is 50/50.

I guess we'll see where the special counsel takes it from here.

They won't go anywhere. The whole thing was another Robert Mueller nothingburger.

**Mountain Man** · 12-29-2022, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post

It's worth noting that the Jan 6 hearings were mostly video clips of footage from the day, and of video clips of witness testimonies of the people who worked with Trump.

Very little of it was politicians talking / grandstanding. It was completely different from any other political hearings I've ever seen.

It was very watchable TV, more like a documentary than a political hearing. It's hard to dispute the evidence they showed since it's all various video clips taken on the day and a multitude of people who were working with Trump testifying under oath and laying out the same general story.

It is both worth watching, and fairly easy-watching. Except for day 3 (which was a dud because one of the in-person witnesses (Michael Luttig) was the world's most boring and least charismatic person)... it was poor by the committee not to spot how terrible of a speaker he was earlier and just show video clips of his testimony instead of having him live in person to waffle for an hour.

PBS has all the hearings on youtube, and I'm sure other places do too. I watched them at 2x speed to get through it.

I don't think you'd say that if you'd watched them. I was really impressed with how much it really was an attempt to get to the truth and gather all the evidence. Even if you think they were motivated out of hating Trump, it's clear that when they started the investigation they didn't understand what Trump's role in the attack on the capitol was, and so any actual legal case against him would have been pretty unlikely to succeed. By the end of the investigation it had become clear from the evidence that Trump was the one really pushing for the attack to happen against the advice of everyone around him, and that he personally really was the bad-actor and motivator of the events that occurred, and there's oodles of evidence from multiple sources to show that.

At the end the committee recommend 4 charges against Trump. Through the hearings they showed pretty convincing evidence for them. One legal analyst I was watching reckoned 3 of the charges are slam dunks, and the 4th is 50/50.

I guess we'll see where the special counsel takes it from here.

The only thing the Democrats proved with their partisan dog and pony show is that there was a mostly peaceful protest in and around the Capitol on January 6, which, of course, everybody already knew. What they failed to show is that the President was in anyway criminally responsible for it.

**Cow Poke** · 12-29-2022, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Starlight View Post

.....
Very little of it was politicians talking / grandstanding. It was completely different from any other political hearings I've ever seen.....

One of the most emotional political grandstanding was the accusation that a Capitol Police Officer was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher.
It was an outright lie.
When it was shown to be a lie, the lying scumbag Democrat prosecutors continued to push that narrative both to try to convict Trump and to raise boatloads of money for their political campaigns.

I have asked Ox about this repeatedly, and, as far as I know - he keeps ignoring it. (I'm only catching up on Tweb this morning, so it's possible he addressed it and I missed it)

IF they had such a solid case against Trump, why did they have to latch onto this lie, and continue to push it even after it was known to be a lie?

**Cow Poke** · 12-29-2022, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

Please tell me you didn't type that with a straight face.

I believe he actually believes that crap. It was obviously a prosecution, not an investigation.

**Gondwanaland** · 12-29-2022, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Ronson View Post

You start that off with "I think he had.." - so we're discussing your beliefs, not the evidence. Well, my belief is that Trump threw a public temper tantrum when he didn't win reelection (he's still throwing it) and a lot of his supporters reacted to that. No calls by him for an insurrection. And if any were planned by the goofballs that showed up at that time, they didn't execute them. They acted like the same rioters that had inspired them six months prior, in Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle.

The panel was led by Democrats, with two very-unique Republicans who had earlier voted for Trump's impeachment. Such jurors would have been dismissed from an ordinary jury trial.

I'm not sure what you think is the significance of that list of names.

And that's what I requested: What is the evidence? What you seem to be saying is that this "large block" of evidence cannot be reduced, or have specifics extracted from it. If that is your position then I'm not buying it.

OK

Have to agree here. He threw a fit and stole a bunch of documents when he didn't get his way in the election. That his cultists followers took his fit and Q-Anon posts as a signal to riot, is on them, not on the sore loser.

**Gondwanaland** · 12-29-2022, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Starlight View Post

It was very watchable TV, more like a documentary than a political hearing.

You unwittingly just stated the problem.

that's because it WASN'T a hearing. It was a carefully produced (by a hollywood producer no less) drama created with a pre-determined script and a plotline.

Topics	Statistics	Last Post
Man sets himself on fire outside courthouse where Trump trial is being held by seer Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM	4 responses 48 views 0 likes	Last Post by seer Yesterday, 03:51 PM
Young mass shooter thwarted by seanD Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM	0 responses 9 views 0 likes	Last Post by seanD Yesterday, 01:25 PM
Pregnant Women Denied Emergency Care In "Prolife" States by VonTastrophe Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM	0 responses 26 views 0 likes	Last Post by oxmixmudd Yesterday, 10:08 AM
Utah School Kids Stage Walk Out Protest Against ‘Furries’ by seer Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM	28 responses 199 views 0 likes	Last Post by oxmixmudd Yesterday, 11:00 AM
Killing gays for being gay isn't homophobic. Warning them they might be killed is by rogue06 Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM	65 responses 462 views 1 like	Last Post by Sparko Yesterday, 10:40 AM

Announcement

Civics 101 Guidelines

Avoiding a derail: an answer to Ronson's question

Avoiding a derail: an answer to Ronson's question

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Threads